McCutcheon v. Virginia & R. L. Co.
| Decision Date | 28 April 1911 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 16,975-(67).,s. 16,975-(67). |
| Parties | A. C. McCUTCHEON v. VIRGINIA & RAINY LAKE COMPANY.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
received while in defendant's employ. The facts are stated in the opinion. The answer alleged that the location of its place of business was in the city of Virginia and demanded that the action be tried at the place of holding court nearest its residence and place of business, as provided by Laws 1909, c. 126. The reply alleged that defendant's principal office was at No. 413 Lyceum building, in the city of Duluth, and that it conducted its business in that city. The case was tried before Cant, J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $2,750. From the judgment entered pursuant to the verdict, defendant appealed. Reversed and judgment ordered for defendant notwithstanding the verdict.
Washburn, Bailey & Mitchell, for appellant.
Thomas J. Davis and J. A. P. Neal, for respondent.
Action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendant. Plaintiff had a verdict. Defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which was denied. Judgment was entered for plaintiff, and defendant appealed.
The facts are substantially as follows: Defendant is a corporation engaged in the manufacture of lumber at the city of Virginia, this state. In its lumber yards, connected with its sawmill, defendant had constructed a number of tramways, upon which were operated tram cars or trucks used in conveying lumber from the mill to the yards, where it was sorted and piled, or to adjacent railroad tracks, and loaded upon cars for shipment. The tramways consisted of trestle work, and were elevated above the ground from ten to fifteen feet, and the one involved in this action was sixteen feet wide. Two parallel tracks were laid thereon, upon which the trucks were moved from the mill to the yards or railroad. The trucks frequently became derailed, and it became necessary to return them to the track without removing the lumber with which they might be loaded. This seems to have been accomplished under methods adopted by those in charge of the work. Plaintiff was in the employ of defendant as a scaler and grader of the lumber.
During the day of July 22, 1909, one of the trucks loaded with lumber became derailed, and the superintendent ordered and directed plaintiff to take the crew of four men, of which he was foreman, and replace it upon the track. Plaintiff proceeded with his men to the tramway, examined the situation and condition of the truck, and found the forward wheels off the track. He was not instructed in reference to any particular method of returning the wheels, and adopted one which seemed to him feasible and appropriate. He determined to raise the load of lumber at the forward end, so that the weight thereof would rest over and upon the rear wheels, when the derailed wheels could readily be replaced. He stationed three of his men at the forward end of the load and one at the rear, taking a position himself on the side thereof, a few feet from the end and next to the outer edge of the tramway. Plaintiff and the three men then raised the load, and, it is claimed, upon being so raised, the end of the load suddenly shifted toward and against plaintiff, throwing him from the tramway to the ground below, and injuring him. The space between the side of the truck, where plaintiff was standing, and the edge of the tramway, was about twelve inches, and upon this narrow foundation he attempted to aid in raising the load of lumber.
The evidence offered by defendant tended to show that plaintiff slipped and fell off the tramway, and that there was no shifting of the load of lumber. But this is unimportant. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial